A messy, occasionally irresistible adaptation. (...)The result is something that isn’t “Wuthering Heights,” but is sort of “Wuthering Heights”-adjacent: two extremely melodramatic (and very good-looking) people flinging themselves toward and away from each other, under some very threatening-looking skies. And, despite all the wall-licking and erotic bread-kneading and leeches and extremely fetishized raw eggs (Fennell is, shall we say, not a particularly subtle filmmaker), it has its moments. When Heathcliff breathily tells a swooning Catherine, “Kiss me, and let us both be damned,” out on those otherworldly moors, it’s the kind of larger-than-life moment that movies are made for. This “Wuthering Heights” is a mess, but an occasionally irresistible one. (Moira MacDonald)
The movie’s biggest strength is that it’s not too deep. It's visually stunning but is ultimately empty calories. Two of Hollywood’s hottest stars, both in terms of fame and attractiveness, are frolicking in the English countryside, arguing in palatial mansions and hooking up passionately in the rain. You could sell the movie on Robbie’s ability to cry beautifully and Elordi's towering dominance, and Fennell kind of does.Using 35mm VistaVision cameras to create dreamy and harrowing shots, Fennell taps into her great visual eye and allows beauty and pining to be the center of her adaptation. (Amanda Luberto)
Emily Brontë Is Rolling In Her Grave — But Watch This AO3 Fanfiction Anyway.A sexy, wind-swept rewrite that forgets the novel’s bite but delivers swoony cinematic heat (...)Perhaps this version will resonate with viewers encountering the story for the first time. Perhaps it will ignite renewed interest in Brontë’s text. Adaptations need not replicate; they can reinterpret, critique, modernise. Fidelity is not the only measure of success.But Wuthering Heights is not simply a love story that can be extracted from its socio-political soil without consequence. It is a novel about poverty, power, racialisation, and the way love can blur into possession. Strip away those layers, and what remains is visually sumptuous but philosophically thin.Emily Brontë wrote a book that refuses domestication. It is structurally fragmented, morally ambiguous, resistant to comfort. This adaptation dresses it in silk and candlelight, frames it in golden-hour splendour, and lets the wind howl through exquisitely designed sets.The wind still rages. I only wish the story had been allowed to do the same. But this deserves a watch on the big screen. (Ekta SInha)
This is a saucier adaptation of Wuthering Heights than has been made before. Though I prefer Emily (2022), whether you’ll like this will depend on whether you can look past the changes from the book (of which half is missing) and enjoy the romance despite the chaos they bring to everyone else. One thing is for certain – they won’t be showing this version in schools. (Sunny Ramgolam)
Sex,sex and more sex. (...)If Ms Fennell wants to make a sexed-up version of “Wuthering Heights”, that is her prerogative. None of it will surprise anyone who has seen her previous films, “Promising Young Woman” and “Saltburn”, both of which touch on the dark side of desire. David Thomson, a film historian, says Ms Fennell’s work has “got a real sense of sensuality, sexuality, danger” and a “kind of recklessness” in its willingness to take risks. Her fans may appreciate her boldness, not to mention the sumptuous costumes and occasional jokes.Devotees of the novel, however, will be dismayed that Brontë’s tale of class, obsession and violence has been so distorted. Many will believe that she has desecrated the book and hollowed out its characters. Luckily, purists can turn on one of many other, more faithful adaptations.They should also bear in mind the wry observation of James Cain, an American novelist and journalist whose work was the basis for “Double Indemnity”, among other films. “People tell me, ‘Don’t you care what they’ve done to your books?’ I tell them, ‘They haven’t done anything to my book. It’s right there on the shelf.’”
If Czech filmmakers Věra Chytilová or Jan Švankmajer ever adapted the work of the Brontë sisters it might look something like 2026’s Wuthering Heights, opening in Prague and cinemas worldwide this weekend. (...)Like all the excess grotesquerie on display, this take on Wuthering Heights isn’t flawless, but it is so packed with provocation and craft that it demands to be seen. Linus Sandgren’s cinematography finds stark beauty in the mud and decay of rural Yorkshire locations, while Anthony Willis’ sweeping score lends the film an ironic romantic grandeur. The magnificent costumes and set design—that flesh-colored wall is a stunner—give the film a tactile, almost nauseating physicality and all but guarantee attention during next year’s awards season.Fennell’s Wuthering Heights may repel as many viewers as it enthralls, but that juxtaposition feels entirely intentional. By dragging Emily Brontë’s story through filth, flesh, and desire, the film strips away centuries of romantic varnish to reveal something far more unsettling underneath. It doesn’t replace the novel so much as interrogate it—and while its reach occasionally exceeds its grasp, this is a bold, abrasive, and often mesmerizing act of desecration perfect for Valentine’s Day, 2026. (Jason Pirodsky)
Si el objetivo de ver Cumbres borrascosas en pantalla gigante pasa por celebrar cada plano ostentoso o cada hermoso vestido que Robbie porta como si fuera modelo de un catálogo de modas entonces la experiencia valdrá la pena, pero como ejercicio erótico y sobre todo como melodrama romántico realmente intenso, conmovedor y desgarrador el resultado está lejos de ser convincente. (Diego Batlle) (Translation)
Con Cumbres Borrascosas, Emerald Fennell deja de lado la reverencia al texto original para ofrecer una adaptación que responde más a su propia sensibilidad autoral que a la tradición literaria. Es una propuesta arriesgada y, por momentos, irregular, pero también apasionada y visualmente potente. Si en Saltburn la obsesión se expresaba a través del exceso, aquí se canaliza mediante la estilización y la emotividad. El resultado es una versión distinta, provocadora y decididamente contemporánea de un clásico eterno. (Laia Cabuli) (Translation)
Emily Brontë's classic is remodelled as a schlocky bodice-ripper.This lurid reworking is designed to deliver shocks, mad frocks and a porny eroticism (...)But the famous main characters are two-dimensional cartoon characters (it’s tempting to say, a mock-gothic Barbie and Ken with real genitalia), driven on by the film’s bizarrely split vision. Are they in a legendary tragic story of undying love? Sort of. Is this a knockabout bit of kitsch, complete with lush Charlie XCX balladry, a black comedy vibe and a puerile desire to shock? Hell, yes.Kitsch doesn’t sit well with tragedy, though, because it is a closed system that's there to be looked at, not understood, and definitely not to be empathised with. So it’s no good protesting that the film is nothing like the book, as I would guess it never set out to be. (Try Andrea Arnold’s raw no-budget version for an honest attempt at adaptation that doesn’t infringe the Trades Description Act.) Fennell’s is sui generis but, as such, a misfire. (Helen Hawkins)
"Wuthering Heights" Tears Up The Text. Emerald Fennell’s latest film butchers Brontë and plays with the blood. (...)Slick, sultry, and superficial. All accurate descriptors of Emerald Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights”. But as the scare quotes underpinning this take on Emily Brontë’s Gothic novel suggest, it’s less of an adaptation and more of a loose interpretation of its lingering, haunting impact on our cultural zeitgeist. Though its unfettered gutting of key characters, plot points, and nuances occasionally render it terribly hollow and unsubtle, such seemingly negative qualities manifest as strengths in a scattershot film that boldly ensnares and titillates our senses. (...)Its sheer disregard for its source material gives way to an experience that’s undeniably cathartic in its comedic and sexual release. While Fennell’s film could have shamelessly indulged in its worst tendencies a tad more, as it pulls punches in its more traditionally inclined closing act, it threatens to make us as lovesick as its bruised protagonists and the tortured synths pervading Charli XCX’s soundtrack. Sure, it butchers Brontë, but it’s too much fun watching it play with the blood. (Prabhjot Bains)
‘Wuthering Heights’ Reaches the Horniest of HeightsAnd it’s up to you, dear viewer, if that horniness is a good thing. (...)I have no qualms with directors adapting their favorite novels, and I certainly don’t object to Fennell giving us two hours of softcore Gothic porn. However, it feels as if she’s just stolen Brontë’s main characters and slapped the Wuthering Heights title onto a steamy romance of her own making. Fennell skims over the more sensitive themes of social class, poverty, revenge, and intergenerational trauma in favor of some sexy time between Heathcliff, Catherine, and, honestly, quite a few of the other characters (prepare yourself to see Alison Oliver sporting a metal collar and going, “Woof, woof.”). Wuthering Heights is definitely a visual feast for Fennell, but unfortunately, it’s not saying much. (Mel Wang)
Not Fully Fennell… Or At All Feral (...)The film’s attitude towards sex is invigorating, at times, while also feeling a little shallow. What is the connection between death and arousal? What does it mean to have power? Who has it? Fennell poses these questions without committing to answering them, leaving us with no more than a finger in a fish, a mess of eggs. (Jade Hayden)
Margot Robbie, Jacob Elordi, and their costars are the only things keeping this film from drowning in its own decadence. (...)The book has 34 chapters. But as William Wyler did in 1939 with his adaptation, starring Merle Oberon and Laurence Olivier (one of many White actors to be cast as Heathcliff, and who would later play Othello in blackface), Fennell decided to end her movie at the novel’s halfway point, essentially leaving what book lovers might argue is the best part of the story untold.But then, that’s what adaptations can do—take an old story and meld it into something new, something that speaks to the current moment or sheds light on the past. Only, Fennell’s storytelling doesn’t speak to much of anything. (Sarah Marloff)
Emily Brontë got it all wrong. A novel intricately tracing the story of two families over several generations, told by multiple narrators, in a complexly interlocking time scheme? Lovers who never consummate their relationship? A hero who is explicitly evil, a nightmare of cruelty and vindictiveness? That will never do. Emerald Fennell (Promising Young Woman, Saltburn) has fixed all these mistakes.As in most adaptations of Wuthering Heights, she has omitted the entire story of the second generation in this family saga, including the ruination of Cathy Earnshaw’s brother, Hindley, and the marriages of her daughter, Cathy Linton, first to Linton Heathcliff and then to Hareton Earnshaw. Whereas other adaptations just stop tactfully short of these complications, Fennell has radically altered the story to abolish them.Cathy here has no brother. It is her father (blustering Martin Clunes) who ruins himself with drink. So that’s one tricky element redacted. Cathy doesn’t have a child with her husband, Edgar Linton; she instead dies of sepsis after a miscarriage. Another poser dodged. And no sex? We are treated to a montage of Cathy (Margot Robbie) and Heathcliff (Jacob Elordi) shagging all over the place, inside and out, on the moors, in her weird pink bedroom, in a fairy-tale carriage. No explanation is given of why Edgar (Shazad Latif), hasn’t noticed. So that’s Emily told. Relying on this film to skip the book will get students in deep trouble. (David Sexton)
It’s all undeniably gorgeous, but distractingly so. There are multiple scenes – well, “scenes” seems overly generous – that are little more than excuses for Robbie to wear yet another fancy frock. In an era when scripts are being written for viewers to absorb in between doomscrolling sessions, “Wuthering Heights” is filmed in order to fill endless Vogue photospreads. For all of Elordi’s mutton-chopped brooding and Robbie’s vamping, there’s something shallow and glib about “Wuthering Heights.” Yet again, the psychosexual classic tragedy has been turned into a well-crafted mass-market potboiler. (Richard Whittaker)
En resumidas cuentas, esta nueva Cumbres borrascosas parece una digna hija de su tiempo: es corta de miras, sexy, muy morbosa y trágica hasta rozar la ridiculez.Toda su imaginación está puesta al servicio de la estética y la perturbación sin que medie la más mínima posibilidad de leer entre líneas o hacer un esfuerzo intelectual en ningún momento. Hasta las traiciones más brutales parecen ser un engranaje sistemático que aboca a un final predecible. (Raquel Hernández Luján) (Translation)
“The world’s on fire with everything that’s happening, and we’ve sat talking about Wuthering Heights,” Wright says. “I think it’s all for the good, really.” (Esther Zuckerman)
So is Heathcliff white? By Victorian standards, he’s definitely not white — and likely by ours as well. Is Heathcliff Black? Maybe! It is both historically and textually viable, but he isn’t necessarily Black.What every scholar I spoke agreed on is that you can’t prove one reading over another (Jasmine Vojdani)
Robbie seemed to laugh off the mixed reaction as she discussed the intimate scenes with radio host Greg James on BBC Radio 1 on Tuesday.The I, Tonya star, 35, burst out laughing when James gave his notes on the explicit nature of the romp, saying that it was: “Horny from the off.”Robbie cracked up and said: “Love it. The first scene, I think, really sets the tone for the film.”James went on: “Mm hmm. My second note is, ‘Don’t remember that bit from the book.’ I've put for that bit, ‘Clifftop alone time.’”Robbie admitted: “We called that section something else, which I won't repeat on the radio.“I'll tell you what we used to call that rock when we were shooting when we’re off the air.”She then shared the X-rated nickname after James promised to bleep it out on air, prompting the radio host to burst out laughing and look embarrassed.Recalling how the cast would react to the rock in question, she said: “We'd be like, ‘Alright, up there!’” (Ekin Karasin)
The Standard has also a podcast where the film is described as "fifty shades of Earl Grey tea".
BBC has also gone to Haworth and asked 'what it's like in the village that inspired Wuthering Heights'.
With the embargo now finally lifted, the reception has been largely mixed. But amid reviews from critics, the movie, which is yet to open publicly, has already experienced review-bombing on popular review aggregator sites, including Letterboxd.Amid these review-bombing campaigns, Letterboxd disabled all activity on the movie last week, and even though the platform didn’t issue an official reason, it may have been an attempt to avoid skewed scores ahead of release.As of writing, Letterboxd has once again activated user activity for the movie, and it currently boasts a score of 3.3 on the platform. It appears the platform has largely filtered out the slew of review bombing attempts, highlighting a clearer consensus ahead of release. (Santanu Roy)
The first big weekend of the 2026 box office arrives Friday with three major studio movies aimed at three different demos: women, families and guys over 25. However, the tallest of them all is the Jacob Elordi-Margot Robbie pic Wuthering Heights. Warner Bros. is eyeing a $70M-$80M global opening. The Burbank lot won the MRC production for $80M over its (current) potential future parent, Netflix, which offered $150M. (Anthony D'Alessandro)
Wuthering Heights is a novel that sticks with you. I first read it aged 12, on a boring family camping holiday in Spain, and if it were not for Cathy and Heathcliff going mad on the page I would have probably gone mad too.Neither character is a hero. Both can be selfish, arrogant and wildly unpredictable, and we see them abuse one another more often than they express affection. Yet we know that they love each other. Deeply. At 12, I had not so much as looked at a boy, but when I reread the book a few years later for my A-levels, my teenage self – encumbered with those pesky, raging hormones that plagued Cathy herself, 15, and torn between Heathcliff (the right choice for her heart, the wrong one for her lofty ambitions) and Edgar (boo!) – finally began to understand how feelings like these could take over a life; how sense could succumb to passion. (Poppie Platt)
Jane Eyre, you say? But Jane Eyre is not even in the conversation. It should be, and will surely return to its rightful place in the general psyche in due course. Why? Because of the two most famous novels produced by the Brontë sisters during their tough, short lives in 19th-century Yorkshire, one is an awe-inspiring tale of sublime romance that tears you to shreds before finally bringing satisfaction and peace, and the other is a great big mess. And the former is Jane Eyre.I first read it, like my esteemed colleague Poppie Platt read Wuthering Heights, aged 12. Twelve is the age to read books that explain to you what love is before you’ve had a chance to discover it for yourself. Twelve is the moment you are putting away childish things but know not whither to turn. You are indeed close in age to Jane herself who begins the book aged 10 being bullied by her horrible aunt, which feels quite a lot like the parenting you are getting at that moment, full of the prohibitions associated with childhood, rather than the greater freedoms pending adolescence should surely bring. (Serena Davies)
Love is an experience so all-consuming and strange that we need all the help we can get. The authors that explore the vastness of the heart often serve as our guides. As “Wuthering Heights” continues to fly off of bookshelves, six authors who’ve written on love’s many fluctuations speak on their own relationships with the book and the legacy of Brontë’s text. (...)Allie Rowbottom: (...) We are turning more and more to books that give us a dopamine hit that we are now trained by our phones to want from every little thing in life. In the case of the romance genre, “Wuthering Heights” is a contradiction to that. (...)Melissa Broder: (...) Heathcliff as an omega man — that sort of outlier is just hot to me. And that contrasts with Catherine, more of a mainstream woman or at least positioned that way. And her love sickness rendered physical is such a beautiful and powerful literary symbol.Upasna Barath: (...) We have the book to thank for so many tropes: forbidden love, friends-to-lovers. It created a lens through which we can look through love. It also showed how love can reside in a gray area — how inherently flawed and beautiful the act of loving is. (...)Erin La Rosa: (...) While Heathcliff and Catherine’s love is absolutely horrifying, I do think there’s some part of me — personally — that would be over-the-moon gratified to know that the love of my life dug up my corpse so that we could turn to dust together. … We might all have a little tickle of a fantasy to have someone completely obsessed with us — the key word here is fantasy. (...)Sophia Benoit: (...)Its influence is in the heightened emotional state of Heathcliff and Cathy, the stakes that Brontë develops through their love for one another. Their own personal desires and flaws really hinder them, which is a key to writing great characters. I also think that a lot of people credit Heathcliff with being in the canon of bad boys. (...)Maurene Goo: (...)On a surface level, I think Brontë created an archetype that has lived on — the brooding, possessive self-made man type. This is like every CEO romance love interest. But I also think “Wuthering Heights” made it OK to be weird and raw in romance, to dig into those strange animal feelings that first love can conjure. (Hannah Benson)
People regularly claim Wuthering Heights as their favourite romance novel, to the exasperation of romance readers and writers. It might be considered a love story, but Wuthering Heights is not a romance.This is clear if we look at it against the (embattled) Romance Writers of America definition: a romance novel needs a central love plot and an emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending. Other 19th-century classics fit the bill – Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, for instance – but Wuthering Heights does not.The love story between Heathcliff and Catherine is certainly the element of the book most readers remember – and, indeed, many adaptations focus on it almost entirely. However, the couple are never actually together in any formal way, and their tortured relationship consumes surprisingly little page space. (...)The appeal of a genre like dark romance – of which Wuthering Heights is surely an ancestor – is its excessive intensity. While dark romance today ends happily, the intensity of Heathcliff and Catherine’s adulterous passion might have been muted if they had ended up together in romantic bliss – and, as a result, this book might not be half so compelling.Speaking broadly, Heathcliff and Catherine are two mostly amoral people who bring destruction to the lives of everyone around them (as well as each other). Whether or not we consider it “romantic”, it is the force of their illicit passion that has made Wuthering Heights memorable.(Jodi McAlister)
Regency romance will come to life just in time for Valentine’s Day through the art of letter writing.The Brontë Birthplace in Thornton, Bradford, is hosting a Regency letter writing workshop on February 11 (tomorrow), offering a nostalgic journey into the world of quills, ink, and wax seals.Charlotte Jones, education officer, said: "This is the second time the Regency letter writing event has been held and it is a truly magical evening."Letter writing was the main way to stay connected during the Regency period, with invitations, courtships, family news and gossip communicated in this way."It really is a lost art and this event is a way of exploring how it was done back then and keeping a bit of history alive."The £20 workshop includes a talk on the history of letter writing, a calligraphy session, and the chance to create folded letters sealed with a "Be More Brontë" wax stamp. (Harry Williams)
Sue Newby works as a Learning Officer with the Brontë Society, who run the museum, and spoke about the long-lasting legacy of the famous sisters. She said: "There's something just really timeless about them." (...)Sue added: "They were just so original, and the work was shocking at the time it was published, particularly Wuthering Heights, people said terrible things about it, they said burn it, it's depraved. It's hard for us to imagine that now.So clearly, there was something very unusual and ahead of its time about the writing, and if you read other books written at the time, you realise how modern the writing is. So they were just incredibly talented."They created these wonderful characters, they made stories that were just so atmospheric and kind of timeless, and they're sort of universal stories, but they're also very rooted." (...)Sue added: "For some people, it's the pilgrimage of a lifetime. They might have come from quite far away, and this means so much to them, to be in the house where these novels were written."It's got a great collection, it's beautiful. But we get a lot of families who come and stay in the area. Like you do, you look at where there is to go, and because most people have heard of the Brontës, people have a kind of awareness of it anyway, so we do get lots of people who don't really know very much about them."I think partly because you can look at it as this is a picture of life at that time, even if you're not that fond of the Brontës, it's fascinating to see all these original artefacts."With a new adaptation coming out soon, there has been an increase in the number of visitors to the Parsonage Museum as well. Sue said: "We do work with lots of young artists and creatives, and people don't always approve, and say 'what's that go to do with the Brontës?'"But they're not in a shrine, they're not just from the past. The writing is so relevant, and it just does resonate with people so much, so we just want as many people as possible to know about that, not feel a barrier." (Sebastian McCormick)
SensaCine México hilariously titles an article about Emily Brontë: " The short and tragic life of the author of 'Wuthering Heights': she died believing in failure and never knew that she changed the history of cinema". Let's forget for a moment that the cinema did not even exist in her lifetime.
Emerald Fennell's radical revamp will almost certainly provoke pearl-clutchingThis is a sizzling, amusing and stormy new screen adaptation of Emily Brontë’s gothic romance – with an outrageous, often irresistible sense of fun. (...)Elordi makes a decent fist of Heathcliff’s gruff Yorkshire accent, channelling Lady Chatterley and Sharpe-era Sean Bean, and Robbie brings the sparkling charisma and impeccable judgement she showed in Barbie, giving a fully fleshed, bratty yet tragic turn, amidst the sometimes distractingly fantastical sets. While, as Nelly, Chau is the model of actorly restraint in a simmering performance that sometimes threatens to steal the show.On one hand the cinematic equivalent of ‘go big or go home’, on the other an emotionally impactful adaptation for the ages, Wuthering Heights is wonderfully flamboyant filmmaking, that will almost certainly provoke pearl-clutching amongst the purists. (Emma Simmonds)
Margot Robbie And Jacob Elordi Bring The Heat In Emerald Fennell's Untamed Reinvention Sure To Be Divisive. (...)Elordi and Robbie are breathtakingly gorgeous, exuding sex appeal. It’s perfect for Fennell’s Wuthering Heights, which embraces anachronism in the dynamic visuals and pulsating score, complete with new music by Charli XCX. This isn’t some opulent, refined, handsome period drama. It’s messy and modern and at times quite hilarious. The best example is Alison Oliver as the cartoonishly awkward ward of Cathy’s boring husband. She starts off looking like a cold fish but eventually shifts into the funniest, and most disturbing victim of Heathcliff’s vengeance.I’m still partial to Arnold’s faithful, if undersexed, adaptation, but it’d be a lie to say that Fennell’s Wuthering Heights didn’t leave its mark. Fennell is unafraid to take classic material and reshape it to her own devious whims, and like it or not, there is no compromise here at all. This is Fennell’s movie through and through, every calculated beat of it. One thing you’ll never be able to say is that Fennell’s Wuthering Heights is like any other. It is uniquely hers, and those who are willing to go along for the ride are going to glad that they did. (Travis Hopson)
Designed to titillate with its tongue very much in its flushed cheek, Emerald Fennell’s raunchy take on Charlotte Brontë’s (sic) doomy classic sets its stall out from the opening as a hanged man gets an erection, prompting carnality from the assembled crowd – including a shuddering nun. Death and sex continue to be inextricably linked in this tale of two Victorian pseudo-siblings who run wild on the Yorkshire moors and through each others’ dreams as they grow from children to cruel adults locked in a toxic romance. Jettisoning the novel’s bookended story of the fate of the family home, Wuthering Heights, and the generational trauma of the Earnshaws, screenwriter and director, Fennell concentrates on the lethal enmeshment of Cathy (Margot Robbie) and her adopted brother, Heathcliff (Jacob Elordi) which sees them devouring each other in the rain, masturbating on rocky outcrops and smearing fingers through any wet thing they can find (snail trail, damp dough, a gelatined fish mouth, blood). (...)Flashy, brash, bombastic, hot and heavy – this Wuthering Heights is like no other, fully committing to its horny-teen concept with all the headlong passion of a ‘handsome brute’ falling for the wrong girl. On that level alone it’s worth seeing and debating. And as they say in Yorkshire: where there’s muck, there’s brass… (Jane Crowther)
Emerald Fennell’s Wuthering Heights (2026) is lush, erotic, and exhausting, an intoxicating but overlong take on obsession and class. (...)Its atmosphere is thick with longing and despair, and its commitment to emotional extremity is almost admirable. Fennell doesn’t soften the story or search for redemption where none exists. Cathy and Heathcliff are portrayed as toxic, destructive people who devastate themselves and everyone around them and yet, in this vision, they remain cosmically bound. Not meant to be together in any healthy sense, but unable to exist apart.That contradiction is where the film is most compelling. Wuthering Heights isn’t a love story so much as a portrait of desire turned poisonous, of trauma mistaken for destiny. It’s messy, excessive, often frustrating, and frequently beautiful. Audiences will likely either embrace its maximalism or recoil from it entirely. I found myself caught in between admiring the ambition, exhilarated by individual moments, but worn down by the relentlessness of it all.Emerald Fennell’s Wuthering Heights may not be subtle, faithful, or restrained, but it is unmistakably hers. For better and worse, it’s a film that refuses moderation, daring the audience to either surrender to its intensity or reject it outright.
Wuthering Heights Mostly Trades in Substance for Period Drama Style.What the movie loses in context and commentary, it succeeds in its visually striking take on a romantic drama. (...)Ultimately, as a movie on its own, Emerald Fennell’s erotic reinvention of the novel may not reach the heights of its lofty ambitions, but there are some joys to be found here. The movie feels like it was made for today’s audience, one in which pop culture staples like A24 films, fan edits, and Bridgerton have helped shape audiences’ tastes. Whether you see that as good or bad is up to you, but in this case, Wuthering Heights gets a half-hearted pass. If you’re coming into this as a fan of the book, this adaptation might not be it. But if you’re just looking for love on the big screen, it’s an ok watch. (Rafael Bautista)
Masturbation on the Moors: Emerald Fennell’s ‘Wuthering Heights’ Is a Bodice-Ripper for the Internet Age. (...)Ultimately, I’m not convinced a film so eager to amuse modern bouches can possibly eviscerate us in the same way as the novel that birthed it. Where Fennell’s other films mined orifices and our capacity for bewildered disbelief—cavorting naked through manor houses, slurping adolescent bathwater—to achieve their maximalist sensibility, with Wuthering Heights, the director settles for scandal-lite in a heritage font. Having exhumed Brontë’s version, Fennell’s take seems to be what if all this repression were extremely cinematic? and embracing style above all else. Enthusiasts of the novel’s emotional disemboweling may not appreciate Fennell’s fantastically fun take on their somber, sacred text, but that doesn’t change the fact that sales of Brontë’s original spiked by 132 percent after the film’s first trailer was released last September, or that Fennell has nevertheless produced a slick, imminently watchable and highly entertaining rollick—even if it trips over itself now and then as it tries to make sure it’s being fun enough. (Raven Smith)
Wuthering Heights Is A Hot, Horny Riot Made For Women – Of Course Critics Hate It. (...)This is not a movie made for critics, nor film festival accolades, it’s not a film for everyone – it’s a film for anyone who’s been a lusty teenager, anyone who loves a bit of old-fashion yearning, anyone who’s had a forbidden crush, anyone who fancies Jacob or Margot (whose chemistry is turned up to the MAX), anyone who enjoys heaving bosoms and simmering sexual tension, anyone who wants to enjoy 2hrs17 minutes of OTT escapism and fantasy, something beautiful and rich to look at. (Hanna Woodside)
Emerald Fennell’s Film Will Be Divisive But You Can’t Fault the Craft.Now, while my own feelings on Wuthering Heights were mixed, there is something that needs to be acknowledged. The film had an undeniable effect on the audience I saw it with, with the mostly female crowd openly weeping when it was over and vocally having a blast from start to finish. It will likely resonate strongly for some people and will deservedly make a boatload of money. While I didn’t invest in the characters in quite the way I’d hoped, I also felt like I was in the hands of a director who was making exactly the movie she wanted to make—and no one can say her vision isn’t singular in that respect. Wuthering Heights is a big swing, and even if it didn’t entirely work for me, I still had a great time watching it. (Chris Brumbay)
Emerald Fennell's Deviant Adaptation Will Leave You Lusting for More. (...)imilarly, for all Fennell’s aesthetic flash — often derided as Instagram-y — her grasp of cinematic language is nowhere near the level of mastery found in something like Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet, which nearly 30 years later still feels exciting and bold. Like Romeo + Juliet, this is an adaptation whose surface style becomes its vehicle for depth. Unlike that classic, though, “Wuthering Heights” is decidedly less experimental in its technique, and that’s too bad. The film pushes the farthest in its musical texture, with a wonderfully lush, electronically-infused score by Anthony Willis, and songs from Charli XCX that imbue the movie with a modern sound to match its modern concerns.Still, when it counts, Fennell’s sense of simple provocation does great heavy lifting. “Wuthering Heights” is hardly the most scandalous or smutty film out there — though it’s unusually salacious for a major, big-budget Hollywood release in 2026 — but Fennell taps into a lust that’s more primal, befitting the source material. A scene in which Heathcliff places his hands over Cathy’s eyes and mouth might be the hottest sex scene in a major blockbuster in many years, and that’s despite them not even having sex in the scene. That’s the energy Fennell is after. The 14-year-old fantasy. The perverse “I could fix him... and he could fix me” spirit that exists among the dense, ambiguous novel’s many qualities, and has so fixed itself in the cultural firmament. (Corey Atad)
A (Very) Bad Romance Makes For A (Very) Good MovieMargot Robbie and Jacob Elordi don't wanna be friends in Emerald Fennell's cinematically opulent, subtext-made-text adaptation of Emily Brontë's classic novel. (...)Writer/director Fennell’s latest offering focuses on the core “Catherine and Heathcliff” relationship, which is little different from, frankly, most filmed adaptations going back to William Wyler’s 1939 adaptation. Shel has crafted a (my words, not hers) spiritually faithful variation on how the book resonated with her when she first read it. That said, it is no less accurate to the respective text than Guillermo del Toro’s acclaimed and Oscar-nominated Frankenstein. (Scott Mendelson)
This “Wuthering Heights” is aimed at those with little patience for period romances. Comic relief abounds, and over-the-top touches keep modern audiences engaged.The two-plus-hour running time is a mistake, but there isn’t a sequence that isn’t lovely to behold.Fennell shrewdly sketches the class divide impeding this pulpy romance, but its woven expertly into the narrative. Other flourishes are more curious, once again keeping us off balance while the source material peeks out from the surface.Your mileage may vary, but those willing to accept a story that’s merely influenced by a literary classic will come away entertained. (Christian Toto)
Fennell’s visually striking, psychologically intense adaptation of the novel has a bold, modern sensibility. (John Lui)
Lukewarm
Garish and silly ‘Wuthering Heights’ strands Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi on the moors forevermore. (...)Late last week, representatives for Warner Bros. sent out a curious directive to film critics set to review Emerald Fennell’s new adaptation of Wuthering Heights. Namely, that we don’t refer to the film as Wuthering Heights but rather “Wuthering Heights” – in quotation marks. (...)Then there is Fennell’s decision to cast Elordi at all, given that Heathcliff was described by Brontë as a “dark-skinned gypsy” and long viewed as ethnically vague, the “other” who so entrances the white, once-blue-blooded Catherine. Fennell’s decision to cast the unambiguously white Elordi might not be so objectionable – again, every new interpreter of a story should be given the grace to reimagine and recontextualize the boundaries of a world previously conceived – were it not for just how the director chooses to cast the rest of her film. If we can ask why this version of Heathcliff is embodied in a certain way (white and untouchably virile) then we can also ask Fennell to explain her decision to hire an actor of colour to play the weak-willed and metaphorically impotent Edgar, who was very much white in Brontë’s story.All of this, though, would require audiences to seriously consider the undertaking that is “Wuthering Heights,” which repeatedly proves to have been constructed absent any sense of seriousness. I suppose it is all up there in the film’s opening scene, set at a public execution, in which Fennell constructs a gallows-humour gag whose mileage depends on your appreciation for the appropriate usage of the words “hang” and “hung.” But that joke, like the rest of this adaptation, is ultimately on the audience. Or, rather, “the audience.” (Barry Hertz)
Style devours substance in a seductive but uneven adaptation. (...)Despite its flaws, “Wuthering Heights” remains a sweeping gothic romance drenched in erotic tension and visual grandeur. Fennell pulls the subtext out of the shadows and forces it into the spotlight, transforming a classic tale of doomed love into something feral, provocative, and often thrilling. The film will undoubtedly divide audiences. Some will be enthralled by its audacity and sensual energy, while others may recoil from its messy characterization and narrative shortcuts. Still, there is something undeniably bold about a filmmaker willing to reinterpret a literary staple with this much heat and personality. Even when it stumbles, “Wuthering Heights” refuses to be boring, and that alone makes it worth experiencing on the biggest screen possible. (Nate Adams)
In fact, "Wuthering Heights" is more than the romance and revenge tale that Fennell chose to focus on, so much that the final output feels lacking in that regard. (...)Faithful readers of the original story will no doubt point out all the faults in this new adaptation, from the lack of class and race discussions, to the erasure of next generation characters, Cathy Linton, Hareton Earnshaw, and Linton Heathcliff.But one cannot fault Fennell for attempting to give her own take on the beloved story, albeit faltering in some areas but winning in others. (Kristofer Purnell)
Fennell's messy 'Wuthering Heights' a playful, unsatisfying adaptation. (...)In this playfully anachronistic version, Fennell puts forth some intriguing ideas and intoxicating cinematic images, but never manages to achieve a firm grasp on the tone of her “Wuthering Heights,” which whips like a loose skirt in the breeze, see-sawing between earnestness and arch, over-stylized melodrama. After two hours of oddly funny skulduggery and muddy rutting, she asks the audience to turn on the waterworks with a big, bloody show and a soapy montage. Alas, we’re all bone-dry, because none of the emotional components meaningfully cohere. The surface pleasures of Emerald Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” may be plenty, but the story itself, well, it never achieves climax. (Katie Walsh)
Always gorgeous to watch, this film is a visual spectacle and makes us think of an epic movie. But I do have to admit that, unlike the Cassie of Promising Young Female, where we sympathized with her crazed revenge fantasy, there isn’t all that much to like with this Cathy and Heathcliff. Sure, they smoulder and are physically attractive, but this Cathy is also vain, calculating, and petulant, and this Heathcliff is proud and ready to demean others in the name of his petty revenge, and wants to hurt Cathy. So how are we genuinely going to like these two?When the tragedy strikes and the film comes to a close, we’re supposed to be moved and feel the emotional weight of our two protagonists, but I watched impassively, and I knew then that something had misfire. (Philip Cu Unjieng)
We received a note from the studio insisting that the official title of writer-director Emerald Fennell’s new Emily Brontë adaptation is to be printed as “Wuthering Heights” in quotation marks. Since we already print all of our movie titles in quotation marks, I think we’re covered here, and I’m not going to make you look at “‘Wuthering Heights’” for an entire review. This is part of a recent trend of annoying title stylizations that drive copy editors crazy and leave readers scratching their heads at unsightly style guide anomalies like “TÁR” and the weird Gen Z aversion to capital letters. But having seen the movie, I can also understand why they’d want to make a distinction. Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” is not your high school English teacher’s “Wuthering Heights,” and it’s certainly nothing like William Wyler’s 1939 adaptation that starred Merle Oberon and Laurence Olivier. (...)They’re excessively hyperbolic and can be a little embarrassing. Just like young people in love. (Sean Burns)
Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi fail to generate much onscreen heat as Cathy and Heathcliff in this faux-outrageous take on Wuthering Heights. (...)And yet, as the film moves into its tragic second half, something weird happens: it doesn’t exactly get good, but it does get stranger and more interesting. The deranged dollhouse design of the Linton’s Thrushcross Grange manor — with its blood-red acrylic floors, skin-coloured wallpaper, fireplaces made of hand sculptures and rooms filled with ostentatious ball gowns — gives the film some crazy horror movie energy just as Cathy starts mentally and physically deteriorating.Fennell, too, goes for baroque in her Brian De Palma-esque shots of blood spreading across bedsheets; and Elordi suddenly comes into his own as the more refined-on-the-surface Heathcliff starts channelling his brutishness and cruelty into targets beyond just Cathy. In short, the film’s style-over-substance emptiness starts working in its favour. It’s a gaudy and confused love story for gaudy and confused times. (Alistair Harkness)
Bad ones
Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi have lashings of kinky sex but it's less Wuthering Heights more Fifty Shades of Grimm. (...)Fennell sexes up her film in other ways too, with deliberately anachronistic music by the hip singer-songwriter Charli XCX, as well as costume and design flourishes that appear to be inspired, if not directly pinched, from Yorgos Lanthimos's deliciously nutty period drama The Favourite (2018).Which is all well and good, but it's to service a love story between two people that I simply didn't care about, and I doubt I'll be alone.'I think you like to see me cry,' Cathy accuses her lifelong companion Nelly Dean (Hong Chau). 'Not half as much as you like crying,' Nelly replies, and she has a point. Added to the relentless rain, Cathy's incontinent blubbing makes this a very watery film indeed. Except where it really counts, in the audience.As the final credits rolled, so far as I could tell, there wasn't a damp eye in the house. (Brian Viner)
Wuthering Heights Dips a Toe in Obsession, Refuses the Plunge. (...)Visually, through its costumes and set pieces, the film captures the gothic romance feel the book is known for. Some moments felt gritty and dirty, while others were bright, pristine, and sterile, creating a stark contrast in storytelling that kept your interest mildly focused on the lead’s story.In the end, you get about halfway through the film and think it’s very slow and mechanical, and then the last hour turns into a disjointed fetish fest of obsession that is melodramatic and boring. If you have read the books, this adaptation may be exactly what you expected from the movie; for a non-book reader, it is forgettable and doesn’t stand out in the genre. (Robert Prentice)
That is why I find myself conflicted about not loving Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights”. Not because it is authorial, which is always welcome, but because it displaces the nerve center of the work. By transforming a complex mechanism into a straight line, the film loses what allows the novel to endure over time. In the name of identification, sensuality, and immediate intensity, it abandons the refusal of comfort that defines Emily Brontë.To be conservative in this debate today is an act of critical resistance. Not against new readings, but against the idea that every classic must be corrected to function in the present. Some books endure precisely because they do not adapt. Because they remain abrasive. Because they demand more from the reader and, consequently, from the cinema that seeks to translate them.And when that does not happen, truth be told, quotation marks are not enough. Perhaps it would have been more honest to choose another name. (Ana Claudia Paixão)
Emerald Fennell’s sexed-up ‘Wuthering Heights’ just hangs limp.Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi do their best, but they can’t compete with the filmmaker’s misplaced, unintentionally funny rendering of the classic novel. (...)Fennell takes enormous liberties with Brontë’s novel, eliminating and changing characters and altering the story to her purposes. This is all fine, in the sense that movies and novels are different art forms, and Fennell is free to pursue her own vision. But Fennell changes so much that it makes one wonder why she bothered to make “Wuthering Heights” at all. She could have made the same movie by adapting some random romance novel with a drawing of Fabio on the cover. (...)Both actors have to compete with Anthony Willis’s overwrought soundtrack, which keeps insisting we’re feeling emotions that we aren’t. Even worse are the lyrical snatches from generic songs, which Willis inserts within the scenes and sometimes intersperses between lines of dialogue. (Mick LaSalle)
Emerald Fennell Turns a Classic Tale Into a Mindlessly Horny Monster.Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi star in this absurdly sensual, annoyingly reductive adaptation of Emily Brontë’s classic novel. (...)Emerald Fennell opens “Wuthering Heights” with a large audience visibly aroused by their own bloodlust. The impetus for their horny ghoulishness is a hanging, which leaves the corpse visibly and publicly erect, which several young people giggle about. We are to believe, perhaps, that Fennell is making a point that audiences crave sex, violence and emotional trauma for the sake of our own immature personal amusement, and again, she’s probably right. But then “Wuthering Heights” does that exact thing, unironically, in slow-motion, so it’s not so much making a point as it is calling its shots.“Wuthering Heights” isn’t so much an adaptation as it is a book report that would lead to a very uncomfortable parent-teacher conference. It exaggerates all the horny, moist intercourse and soap operatic betrayals, downplays all the substance, and makes room for problematic interpretations for reasons that baffle the mind. Damn it, this movie looks good, but damn it, this movie ain’t good. (William Bibbiani)
A Highly Sexualized But Oddly Square Adaptation. (...)Once Heathcliff re-enters the picture years later, now a lord to rival Edgar, Wuthering Heights‘ two strands––kinkiness and tragedy––become apparent. Fennell’s big change to the text seems her desire to make Cathy a new icon of “female gooning.” The film’s focus on skin, fluids, goo, and fingers in orifices signals her highly sexualized take. Yet it never quite erupts or––to evoke its own imagery––gushes. If anything, it feels tame. Fennell has said her intention was to create a new Titanic (a romantic classic that younger girls would see over and over) but the film feels stuck in that adolescent space while simultaneously trying to be “shocking.” Will anyone over 13 years old actually be rattled by any of this?It doesn’t help that Wuthering Heights struggles significantly in its third act, giving an impression of too much footage left on the cutting-room floor. Between odd tonal swerves and the rushed conclusion to a character’s tragic arc, Fennell’s ending lands with a total thud. The film ultimately, oddly feels as square as William Wyler’s 1939 iteration, no matter how many allusions to masturbation. (Ethan Vestby)
'Wuthering Heights' Is Unmoored from Literature. (....)Wuthering Heights insists upon paying homage to classic Hollywood romances like Gone with the Wind while also offering a highly sexualized take on Catherine and Heathcliff's storied romance, ultimately using sex, violence and emotional manipulation in the name of passion. This isn't to say transgressive romances don't work — Heated Rivalry has recently proven adaptations of erotic fiction can be done well — but Wuthering Heights pays outright disrespect to its original author and her work. It arguably goes so far to say that Brontë's book doesn't actually matter here.In a different world — perhaps one where a global literacy crisis isn't a reality, or one where style doesn't routinely eclipse substance — that might be forgivable, and this adaptation might even be lauded as daring. But since Fennell obviously has the skills, resources and desire to tell a tawdry, empty-headed romance, she should have just written her own. (Jericho Tadeo)
Emerald Fennell's Wuthering Heights adaptation struggles to capture the novel's emotional depth. The film's central romance fails to ignite, leaving audiences detached and unengaged. (...)Technically, the film oscillates between intention and indecision. Robbie’s period costumes, in particular, seem torn between era authenticity and visual spectacle, a fitting metaphor for the film’s larger identity crisis.Ultimately, no amount of aesthetic polish can salvage a romance if its central relationship fails to stir you. Wuthering Heights should make you ache, recoil, and yearn, not sit in detached admiration, waiting for feeling to arrive.“Drive me mad,” Heathcliff asks. This Wuthering Heights never dares to. (Shweta Keshri)
%20(1).jpg)
Wave of Nostalgia presentsFebruary 12, 06:00 PMHaworth Parish Church or on ZoomThe greatest tragic love story ever told – but this time, Catherine tells it herself. Essie Fox’s Catherine reimagines Wuthering Heights with beauty and intensity – a haunting, atmospheric retelling that brings new life to a timeless classic and lays bare the dark heart of an immortal love.Essie will be joined by Claire O'Callaghan launching a revised and extended edition of 'Emily Brontë Reappraised' her definitive work on a Brontë sister.Essie and Claire will be reading from and discussing their books, answering questions and signing copies.
%20(1).jpg)
Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi have great chemistry in Emerald Fennell's brash, funny, extravagant spectacle. (...)Victorian purists, look away. From the moment Emerald Fennell’s Wuthering Heights opens, with a public hanging in which the deceased’s involuntary erection is gazed at by an aroused nun, one thing is clear: do not watch this expecting Emily Brontë. This is Fifty Shades of Grey with windy moors and crinoline. (...)I wanted more than glamourous despair and frilly dresses, and indeed the strength of the aesthetic threatens occasionally to overpower the raw emotion. Somewhere in this story was a more cohesive exploration of Mr Earnshaw’s complex legacy and the implications of slavish sexual devotion.It’s so close to perfection but not quite there. Like Cathy, Fennell should look beyond the trappings of lavish design, and reach for greater depth. But, oh when she does, what a sight that will be. (Francesca Steele)
Emerald Fennell’s Wuthering Heights captivates with stunning visuals in the Yorkshire Moors and sizzling chemistry between Elordi and Robbie.Released in time for Valentine’s Day, Emerald Fennell’s third film is being launched among a blitzkrieg of hype, focusing on Jacob Elordi and Margot Robbie, its highly photogenic stars.Usually, that is enough to make you wary. But Fennell’s take on Emily Brontë’s 1847 novel Wuthering Heights has the substance to back it up. Beautifully costumed, designed, shot and performed, the film is an impeccably made tale of doomed lovers, one that will bring a tear to the eye. (James Mottram)
Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi steam up the screen in Emerald Fennell’s loose, lusciously perverse adaptation of Emily Brontë’s ‘Wuthering Heights.’ (...)With Linus Sandgren’s breathtaking cinematography – which soars, climbs, and gallops through beautifully desolate, foggy, and craggy locations in Yorkshire -- Anthony Willis’ haunting score, and even the needle drops from Charli XcX (which sound anachronistic on paper but work here) all adding texture and immersion to the proceedings, Emerald Fennell and her cast have devised a truly towering romance in ‘Wuthering Heights.’Purists may grumble about certain aspects, but this is an adaptation based on a particular vision – a vision that adds a modern edge to a book that, while still universal in its themes, is now nearly two centuries old. Even if you don’t care personally for this extravagant, extraordinary film, it may introduce new generations to the source text – making Cathy and Heathcliff immortal all over again. (Don Kaye)
Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi deliver sizzling chemistry in the new Wuthering Heights - but the “kinky, kooky” film will divide audiences. (...)For a movie continually prepared to roll the dice, it is impressive just how often it makes a collect on the risks taken. (...)The new Wuthering Heights definitely won’t go do well with the purists. It might even ruin Valentine’s Day for those wanting a little happily-ever-after to go with their chocolates, flowers and heart-shaped balloons.However, any im-purists out there willing to go with the freaky flow of this strange and mercurial offering will love where it intends to leave them. (Leigh Paatsch)
Wuthering Heights is for the horny girls – we don’t need a man’s opinion. (...)Emerald Fennell’s Wuthering Heights is undeniably horny – but it’s also devastatingly emotional, pushing period dramas further into a new era that’s far more unhinged and romantic than Bridgerton. (...)Some will argue that this Wuthering Heights feels like style over substance because half the book is missing, although it’s not the first adaptation to do this.Fennell has clearly run rampant with feelings and vibes over obsessive faithfulness – but the wallop of its emotions still has the ability to transport audiences and linger afterwards.Let us swoon in peace.Some will love this Wuthering Heights and others will love to hate it, but it’s a triumphant reinterpretation from filmmaker Fennell that’s only stronger and more emotionally devastating for its perversions and dramatic ripping up of a much-loved text. (Tori Brazier)
This sexed-up reimagining is a bonking success. (...)Robbie is unafraid of playing up Cathy’s brattiness and selfishness, while Elordi – with his spot-on regional accent – has a combustible magnetism that bristles throughout the film. His temper and her jealousy are too hot, too greedy, as Kate Bush might say, and the same applies to the spicy sex scenes that are much edgier than your standard Victorian lit adaptation.Those are among many liberties taken by Fennell, but like some of the costume and production design choices that kick in once Cathy is ensconced in her new life, they feel like intuitive and intentional decisions. She’s kept like a doll (literally, in one amusingly meta sequence), and the opulent trappings of her new life are sharply juxtaposed with the elemental, instinctive connection she has with Heathcliff. While it’s not the definitive take on the text, it’s a full-blooded and invigorating reimagining that prioritises feelings over faithfulness, to memorable results. (Matt Maytum)
Although it isn’t a literal adaptation of Brontë’s novel (hence the quotation marks) and only covers the first half of the 400-page story, “Wuthering Heights” remains utterly engrossing. You’ll finish the film in need of a dark room, a good cry and a long moment to consider whether you’ve ever truly experienced love.Yes, it may be slightly longer than necessary. Yes, BookTok audiences may be shocked by how it differs from the source material and how it downplays the novel’s themes of racial and social otherness. And yes, some scenes might make you feel uncomfortable and leave you thinking “what the hell is happening”. But if you’re a romantic, you’ll fall hard for this Gothic tragedy regardless.So if you’re wondering why I’m suddenly looking at booking a trip to the windswept Yorkshire moor, wearing billowing white shirts to work and listening to “Chains of Love” on repeat, just know that “Wuthering Heights” has become my entire personality. (Lachlan Guertin)
Even though it’s only February and the current awards cycle has yet to be completed, it is hard not to suggest that Wuthering Heights could emerge as a contender in below-the-line categories for next year. While not a surefire thing given the early release date, I do see a world where cinematography, costume design, production design, and score get nominated. From a craft perspective alone, this is a film that deserves to be recognized.Emerald Fennell’s Wuthering Heights is a breathtaking and visual work of art. This will be the film that firmly establishes Emerald Fennell as one of the most in-demand filmmakers working today. Audiences, especially those on BookTok, are going to be absolutely floored by what she has done with her bold, fearless, and visually striking adaptation of this beloved story. Wuthering Heights is destined to become a massive hit for Warner Bros and one that is sure to create a whole new generation of fans from audiences all around the world. (Scott Menzel)
Margot Robbie film is a fevered, astonishing and infuriating mess.Wuthering Heights is so cinematically beautiful, it’s a shame its Cathy and Heathcliff provoke cries of “OK, enough with your nonsense, you can both go jump off a bridge”. (...)The chasm between Wuthering Heights’ characters encapsulates why this film is so chaotic. Performances from Oliver and Clunes that are so undeniably magnetic, and then the central romance that ultimately leaves you cold and feeling a bit gross .Cathy and Heathcliff may represent raw desire, but it’s not love. They are pure id and we’re all presently too tired to indulge that bullsh*t.But what is love in Wuthering Heights is its paragon of filmmaking craft. Come for the promise of hot romance, stay for the heartstopping production design and superb cinematography. It makes the whole endeavour worthwhile. (Wenlei Ma)
If we take this picture as Fennell intended – a rowdy, sexed-up romance with impossibly gorgeous leads, fetching visuals and an atmospheric score – then it works. If you go looking for anything else, you’ll come away disappointed.There are, of course, pros and cons to Fennell’s giddy, stripped-back approach. Rarely has a film this shallow looked and, indeed, sounded so spectacular.The Cooper and Mellington chapters are lovingly crafted, and our own Alison Oliver is superb as Isabella, Edgar’s crazed sibling. Elordi’s central troublemaker is playful and conniving, but never truly dangerous. Robbie’s well-dressed heartbreaker is constantly on the brink of tears.There have been better Heathcliff-and-Cathy screen pairings – but Fennell’s headliners are the first to look as if they might actually devour one another. (Chris Wasser)
While we’re trudging slowly through this, every 15 minutes we have to be reminded that Fennell is terribly, terribly, terribly shocking. I haven’t read the book, and I’ve no idea whether Fennell has, but I’m going to venture onto a limb here and suggest that the bondage scenes are her invention. Does the original feature Cathy pleasuring herself on the Yorkshire Moors? Again, I’m guessing not. (...)It’s all very stylish, and the set designers clearly had a whale of a time: Cathy’s home looks like something out of Warhammer 40,000, while Edgar’s mansion has been built out of left-over sets from 1980s pop videos. But it’s style without depth, asking you to believe that true love means dying beautifully. And that being shocking is big and clever. (Robert Hutton)
Torrid sex scenes and Margot Robbie can’t save it from being disappointingly mid. (...)The film’s shortcomings aren’t just restricted to the plot.No one was more excited than this critic to hear Fennell had tapped Charli XCX for the soundtrack, and the singer’s collab with the legendary John Cale, House, is a legit banger.But there’s a disconnect in how the music is incorporated in the film, and you find yourself consciously thinking, “Oh, there’s another Charli XCX track”, rather than being swept up in the atmosphere it provides.The whole point of getting Fennell to give us her iconoclastic take is to provoke a visceral response - you love it or you hate it.Unfortunately, Wuthering Heights, for all its pomp and circumstance, doesn’t reach that level of emotion. (Ben O'Shea)
Jane Eyre by Charlotte BrontëIn this classic 1847 Gothic novel, Brontë boldly offered a realistic portrayal of a woman’s inner life, acknowledging her struggles with natural desires and social constraints. The story unfolds in Yorkshire, following a seemingly simple orphan girl as she faces life’s challenges: a cruel and abusive aunt, harsh school conditions, and later, her love for Rochester despite his marriage to another. Yet Jane overcomes these obstacles through her determination, wit, and courage.Wuthering Heights by Emily BrontëSister Emily Brontë published her 1847 masterpiece a few months after Charlotte’s Jane Eyre appeared. Wuthering Heights tells the passionate yet destructive story of the willful Catherine Earnshaw and Heathcliff, an orphan brought into her home. It chronicles their obsessive love, rigid social class barriers, and a cycle of revenge that haunts their families across generations on the Yorkshire moors.
EmilyWhy you'll like this movie:Emily explores straight into the wild spirit behind Wuthering Heights itself, Emily Brontë. This isn’t your typical period drama; it’s got a streak of rebellion and untamed energy that matches the novel’s mood. Emma Mackey makes Emily both mysterious and relatable as she battles grief, family expectations, and her own fierce imagination. If you love stories about outsiders who refuse to be tamed, and want to peek behind the curtain at what might have inspired such a tempestuous love story, this film’s for you.What the movie is about:Emily Brontë struggles within the confines of her life, yearning for artistic and personal freedom. She finds romance before writing her seminal novel, "Wuthering Heights." (Harper Brooks)
